Part 121 Regulations Question

Nevertheless, the general population has shown no such reduction in their
air travel.

I'm not sure that's true (though I haven't reviewed the stats). I do
know that people are plowing money into this air taxi stuff, and jet
cards are becoming more popular, even at the higher prices. So there is
evidence that the inconvenience of commercial air travel is impacting
travel plans, at least at the corporate short haul level.

Remember also that some of the commercial short haul traffic is heads
and tails of longer flights. I'll bet isolated short flight passengers
are down.

For most people, convenience and time are inseparable.

They play into each other, but indirectly, and the distinction is
meaningful.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"GS" wrote in message
et...
[...]
Now here's a question for you. How is it that I am not allowed to strap
my laptop into the bag yet I am allowed to strap a cello into a
(purchased) seat?

I don't know. Possibly the FAA Administrator has issued a waiver (blanket,
or to the specific airline) for that particular situation. Possibly there's
some other rule I didn't bother to look at covering cargo that is too large
to fit under the seat or in a storage bin or locker. Or possibly the
airline simply looks the other way so they can sell a plane ticket.

Regardless, I don't see how the question is relevant to your original
situation. You were told what you were doing was against the regulations,
and it was.

[...]
agreed and that is why I did immediately comply. the problem today is
that there are tons of unpublished rules and regulations (Op Sepcs, FA
handbooks, etc.) and there is a small minority of FA's who claim "due to
new security regulations you can't do whatever." if that is truly a
security regulation why is she the only FA to follow this regulation.

Who is "the only FA to follow this regulation"? You never said that the
flight attendant you asked you to put your bag on the floor claimed it was a
security regulation. And it's not a security regulation...it's a cargo
carriage regulation that has likely existed for a very long time.

It is certainly possible she made it up as a veil to not deal with some
customer. Numerous frequent fliers have asked on other boards about other
circumstancs so I am not alone on this matter. So it is within every
customer's right to question her or the carrier on it *after* complying
with it otherwise we're a bunch of blind and stupid rats.

IMHO, it is counter-productive to try to and question the flight attendant.
Maybe if the request is just blatantly ridiculous, but I doubt that happens
very often (none of the examples you've given seem blatantly ridiculous to
me). You are unlikely to change the physical nature of the situation by
questioning the flight attendant, but you DO create tension and stress as
well as a feeling of conflict. These are not useful mental states in the
context of flying on an airline.

By all means, bring it up with the airline after the flight is over. But
every passenger should be doing their best to avoid conflict, especially
with the flight crew, except when completely unavoidable (which should
practically never be the case).

so is it allowed to be the only passenger standing in the back of a 757 in
order to stretch on a 5+ hour flight? According to 99% of the FA's, no
problems at all and they start chatting with the passenger. 1% of the
FA's claim it is against the new security regulations? Hmmm, sounds like
that FA is using it as an excuse. If it is truly a security regulation
are the other 99% of FA's not following the the security regulations?

I have no idea. I have paid very little attention to the new security
regulations, as it's my goal to never have to deal with them. I have
avoided the airlines like the plague ever since the TSA started dictating
new security regulations.

Given how absurd the other security regulations are, it wouldn't surprise me
if the security regulations quoted do in fact exist. Even if only a handful
of flight attendants enforce them. Your percentages are obviously made up,
but even if we accept that a minority of flight attendants are enforcing the
security regulations, that's not such a surprising situation, and it
shouldn't be used to make it harder for the flight attendants who ARE trying
to do things by the book.

If you have done the research to determine for certain that a regulation
doesn't exist, then by all means point that out to the airline. But absent
that, why go out of your way to make assumptions that lead only to conflict?
What's so hard about giving the flight attendant (who is presumably
better-educated in the regulations than most passengers would be) the
benefit of the doubt.

I'd find that a safety of flight issue that should be reported. What if
the passenger gets a letter from their doctor saying that due to say low
blood pressure the passenger is required to stand and stretch. Who does
the passenger speak to ahead of time to get this information passed down
so it isn't an issue onboard?

AFAIK, the TSA does not make allowances for medical reasons. If there
actually is a security regulation, I'm not convinced that there is a legal
way to circumvent that regulation, especially not just with a doctor's note.
If the current regulations dictate that a passenger cannot comply with
medical requirements, then that passenger should probably not be flying on
the airlines.

Beyond that, I can't tell you who the passenger would have to talk to. I'd
guess that the best first step would be to try to explain the situation to
the gate agent, providing them an opportunity to discuss with the pilot
prior to the boarding of the flight. But you're unlikely to get a waiver
from the TSA, and so if there is a regulation to be circumvented, it won't
happen legally. Given that, the exact person you need to clear things with
isn't going to be something that's a published policy item.

Pete

agreed and that is why I did immediately comply. the problem today is
that there are tons of unpublished rules and regulations (Op Sepcs, FA
handbooks, etc.) and there is a small minority of FA's who claim "due to
new security regulations you can't do whatever." if that is truly a
security regulation why is she the only FA to follow this regulation.
Who is "the only FA to follow this regulation"? You never said that the
flight attendant you asked you to put your bag on the floor claimed it was a
security regulation. And it's not a security regulation...it's a cargo
carriage regulation that has likely existed for a very long time.

I might have cut and pasted out of order. When I stood up for a few
minutes at the back of the 757, she claimed I couldn't stand there due
to security. Now by my guess, 95% of the time the FA's enjoy company to
chat with. The 5% of the time it is a security issue to stand there.
(this is for over 400k miles in the past 5 years on this same carrier).
Well someone is either making up this regulation or the others are not
following it.

IMHO, it is counter-productive to try to and question the flight attendant.
Maybe if the request is just blatantly ridiculous, but I doubt that happens
very often (none of the examples you've given seem blatantly ridiculous to
me).

I'm not about to get into an argument and I instantly started putting my
bag under the seat. But often the FA's don't hang around, as they are
not paid to hang around, to (politely) question. And these requests
happen literally every flight and some are quite ridiculous. For
example, standing at the back of the plane. If I know from experience
it is allowable for 95% of the time, then this 5% sure sounds
ridiculous. This goes for hanging out by the cockpit door (I get
upgraded often due to my frequent flier status). So it is ok to stand
by the cockpit door but not at the back of a 757??? Note, if this
regulation does exist, I wouldn't be surprised but then why is 95% of
the FA's not enforcing especially by the cockpit door?

Given how absurd the other security regulations are, it wouldn't surprise me
if the security regulations quoted do in fact exist. Even if only a handful
of flight attendants enforce them. Your percentages are obviously made up,
but even if we accept that a minority of flight attendants are enforcing the
security regulations, that's not such a surprising situation, and it
shouldn't be used to make it harder for the flight attendants who ARE trying
to do things by the book.

stretching for 10 minutes on a 5+ hour flight is VERY reasonable and, in
fact, I've seen videos on planes suggesting to stand up to avoid that
one lawsuit of a passenger dying (?) due to blood pooling in their legs
due to inactivity. My percentages are NOT made up, but a guess, yes
though. A frequent flier on another board wrote to me today "I fully
agree with your original thread started which was about FA's just
"making" up rules as they go which I've personally experienced as
well........"

If you have done the research to determine for certain that a regulation
doesn't exist, then by all means point that out to the airline. But absent
that, why go out of your way to make assumptions that lead only to conflict?
What's so hard about giving the flight attendant (who is presumably
better-educated in the regulations than most passengers would be) the
benefit of the doubt.

because I'm trying to do something quite reasonable, for example,
stretching on the long flight. Should I argue about it after a 13 hour
flight? Hell no. I'm stretching on that flight. Again, this is not a
one time incident. I've flown over 100k miles since January 1st. I
spend a significant time on planes (I wish more of it was myself flying)
and see this stuff all the time.

Again, I'm not trying to raise hell and when asked to do something by a
FA, I do it. But many things I've heard said by FA's are very
ridiculous and diluting the real purpose of security regulations.

Gerald

"GS" wrote in message
...
[...]
stretching for 10 minutes on a 5+ hour flight is VERY reasonable and, in
fact, I've seen videos on planes suggesting to stand up to avoid that one
lawsuit of a passenger dying (?) due to blood pooling in their legs due to
inactivity. My percentages are NOT made up, but a guess, yes though.

By definition, if you don't have actual documented counts of the instances,
the numbers are made up. If you are guessing about the numbers, then they
are made up. That's what "made up" *means*.

As far as the stretching goes...no one is telling you that you can't get up
and stretch. They are telling you that there's a specific place on the
airplane they don't want you loitering. Whether this is a security
regulation or not, it's something that the flight crew has instructed you
not to do, and thus is carries the force of law. Go stretch somewhere else.

A frequent flier on another board wrote to me today "I fully agree with
your original thread started which was about FA's just "making" up rules
as they go which I've personally experienced as well........"

Maybe it will be relevant when a flight attendant writes to you and says
that they personally on a regular basis make up rules as they go. I doubt
the other person who replied to you has any more justification for his claim
to know what's actually a rule and what's not than you do.

Now, all that said, I will note that your post started on the margins of
being on-topic here (a newsgroup about *piloting* airplanes, not riding as a
passenger in them), and your replies have drifted well away from those
margins, into being entirely off-topic. Frankly, I'm not really all that
interested in debating the finer points of regulations governing passenger
behavior on airlines.

But besides that, there are so many absurd rules that DO exist that it seems
silly to me for someone to think that they know for sure some claimed rule
is too absurd to be true.

I gave you the reference for the regulation relevant to your original
question, pointing out that your belief that the rule didn't exist was
false. You SHOULD have taken that as a clue that other rules you believe
don't exist might actually exist as well. For some reason, you didn't, and
without bothering to research *those* rules you have continued your tirade
against the flight attendants. I don't really feel like having a discussion
where the other person can't be bothered to find and consider actual
*facts*. Your entire attitude and opinion is based on assumptions and
presumptions, and you're not even willing to admit it.

Please don't expect any more replies from me about this topic.

Pete

Jose wrote:

I'm not sure that's true (though I haven't reviewed the stats). I do
know that people are plowing money into this air taxi stuff,

In other words, the airlines are driving away the folks who fly
business or first class, and tend to pay full price; nice business
plan :-) no matter how much money you fork off for a plane ticket,
you still end up having to go through the same crap, delays,
'security' screening, etc. (you won't take off until the last
passenger is in) ok, you might benefit from some kind
of priority as compared to the folks travelling in cattle class, but
the difference is not worth the cost.

Sorry to be so ignorant, but how much does it cost these days to
fly with air taxi as compared to flying business/first class with
the airlines? do you guys reckon that these new VLJ coming up will
have an impact on that market? ok, it won't compete on the long
range flights, but what about the short haul? and where do
airlines get their revenues these days? short or long haul?

--Sylvain

"Sylvain" wrote in message
t...
Jose wrote:

I'm not sure that's true (though I haven't reviewed the stats). I do
know that people are plowing money into this air taxi stuff,

In other words, the airlines are driving away the folks who fly business or
first class, and tend to pay full price; nice business plan :-) no matter
how much money you fork off for a plane ticket, you still end up having to
go through the same crap, delays, 'security' screening, etc. (you won't
take off until the last passenger is in) ok, you might benefit from some
kind of priority as compared to the folks travelling in cattle class, but
the difference is not worth the cost.

My airline status is primarilly due to frequency of travel more than the
price point of my tickets but the day they shut down everything in the UK,
because I have status on US Airways, I was through security at Sky Harbor in
Phoenix, AZ in less time than it often took BEFORE the UK incident.

Those in "cattle class" were in line for probably an hour at least.

SNIP

Jay B

Sorry to be so ignorant, but how much does it cost these days to
fly with air taxi as compared to flying business/first class with
the airlines? do you guys reckon that these new VLJ coming up will
have an impact on that market? ok, it won't compete on the long
range flights, but what about the short haul? and where do
airlines get their revenues these days? short or long haul?

I'm also ignorant of exact numbers, but what I recall is that air taxi
is more expensive (per flight) but has the benefit of little or no
security hassle, and access to many little airports the commercial
operators don't fly into. This is attractive to business travellers.

Will the VLJs impact the market? Yes. Sufficiently? Dunno -
sufficiently to do what?

I don't know where the airlines get their revenues, but I suspect it's
from excess baggage charges.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

Will the VLJs impact the market? Yes. Sufficiently? Dunno -
sufficiently to do what?

sufficiently to change the airlines' attitude towards the rest
of us -- nothing like a little bit of competition to get better
service,

but then I am an optimist :-)

--Sylvain

ps and when I grow up I want my very own VLJ :-)